Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Liberal Democracy in Poland delivered street violence by the riot police, use of agents provocateurs, complete control of the TV news, repression of free speech, forced sackings of journalists, massive mafia operations involving the highest level politicians, political murders, mass emigration and virtually no social welfare programs.What is there not to like?

Korea is an odd choice of example of homogeneity. The historic three nations are still alive and well, and differences between them were clear in the police-demonstrator confrontations of the 1980's. What looked like pure racial hatred was, I believe, pure racial hatred. It was exploited for the purpose of division-to-rule by the immediate previous President's father, the dictator at the time.

As for the equilibrium of the Scandinavian and Commonwealth democracies, none of them remotely homogeneous, I believe it is the result of their constitutional form. They are all constitutional monarchies. Thus, unlike a republic of the American or mainland Chinese form, all politics is about how "The People" shall unite against their notional enemy, the Crown. In a republic, by contrast, the people left unthreatened turn into a mob. Their politics is pigs at the trough.

Korea is an odd choice of example of homogeneity. The historic three nations are still alive and well, and differences between them were clear in the police-demonstrator confrontations of the 1980's. What looked like pure racial hatred was, I believe, pure racial hatred. It was exploited for the purpose of division-to-rule by the immediate previous President's father, the dictator at the time.

As for the equilibrium of the Scandinavian and Commonwealth democracies, none of them remotely homogeneous, I believe it is the result of their constitutional form. They are all constitutional monarchies. Thus, unlike a republic of the American or mainland Chinese form, all politics is about how "The People" shall unite against their notional enemy, the Crown. In a republic, by contrast, the people left unthreatened turn into a mob. Their politics is pigs at the trough.

This is an excellent, if not entirely detailed and perfect, article and argument. People who are making negative comments seem overly concerned with arguing about the details in various countries and political situations without considering the significance of the over-all import of the piece.

The simple idea is, as I see it, that the process and implementation of "governing" is more and more disconnected from what people feel they can control (and do control), and what they like, and one result is that "the people" want to take back or assert control. There are cultural issues as well, and issues of what it means to be "liberal" in different times and different cultures. Trying to compare what a Tsar did compared to Woodrow Wilson is too comical: Liberal means, to some extent, out in front, as a leader, trying to make changes, compared to a conservative, hoping to maintain the (Cultural?) status quo.

One problem is that governments, in general, tend to make promises (to their perceived supporters and constituents) that they will do things better than the opposition. In the USA and other apparent or intended democracies "better" should mean providing equal rights and equal treatment and equal opportunity for all. And equal benefits. In the USA that's what the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are all about. The reality is that such "equality" is difficult to define, let alone implement and achieve and measure. Worse still, it always looks to some people like certain groups get special treatment, at the expense of someone else. When someone has that negative personal perception of the situation it seems to them like they are being treated unfairly.

And certain groups are actually culturally disfavored. Being born black in the USA is a serious, long term handicap. As is being anything except a white male of indeterminate religion. Yes, "success" for a person in any such disfavored group is possible, as is happiness, but racism (for example) is an issue in the USA, leading to both sides feeling injured as "rights" are extended according to the laws and founding documents.

And people in general tend to think their personal success has been hard earned, and is well deserved, while tending to think those who are not so successful simply did not try or work hard enough. These issues, feelings, and the aspirations of outsiders (the "other") get very personal, and difficult to manage. People by nature tend to resist change when they perceive that they are doing well enough and they can see some risk in proposed policies. Resistance to change is not always entirely irrational or mean spirited.

To me a lot of this gets back to Adam Smith and the ideas he expressed about the linkage of the welfare of the land owners and investors and workers. In modern terms what I think is going on is in part a failure of the intellectual and governing elites to properly sell or promote their "Liberal" ideas and purposes to "The People"as good for everyone, not just some currently disfavored group. Coupled with that is of course the hypocrisy of the current leadership (if we want to call it that) of the USA. It is all very well to support "the people," but what about when it is a hoax or deceit?

As you have not justified your opening comment on Brexit with facts I will assume it is motivated by something else!In the UK we have a long tradition of expecting bureaucrats to be public servants, not people who bark orders at us and say there is nothing we can do to stop them, that was my first reason for voting Brexit, although it has just made the culprits more determined to bully.I also voted against the blatant racist pecking order in the EU (aka Franco-German supremacism), with its colonial tariff union. I guess the behaviour of Germany (e.g. towards Southern Europe) and France in constantly bullying the UK and others is "politically correct" populism.The whole concept of good and bad democracy you are peddling seems disingenuous.

I think the dichotomy between illiberal democracy and undemocratic liberalism is needlessly exaggerating both populism and liberal reformism to the point of propaganda.

As I see it we are seeing a cultural split within liberalism in the form of communitarian liberalism which tends towards a national focus on rights and responsibilities and national democratic self-determination in terms of socio-cultural, socio-economic and socio-ecological public policies and cosmopolitan liberalism which tends towards international rights and responsibilities and international technocratic self-determination in terms of socio-cultural, socio-economic and socio-ecological public policies.

The former, communitarian liberalism, tends to be captured by a more populist/conservative leaning electorate and the latter, cosmopolitan liberalism, tends to be captured by a more liberal reformist leaning electorate.

Each type of liberalism has its own interpretation on issues such as stagnating living standards, fears of multiethnic democracy and the rise of social media as a vehicle for propaganda and collaboration along the continuum between communitarian and cosmopolitan value systems which produces different representations/performatives of freedom, autonomy and popular will. These different representations/performatives are currently operating within a field of national/international realism and are creating the perception of crisis in the form of of a cultural war with liberal reformists imagining illiberal democracy and proponents of populism/conservatism imagining undemocratic liberalism.

However what is needed is a concerted effort to shift the representational field from international realism to international liberalism. Not with the use of undemocratic technocratic institutions like the EU or the UN but with the use of strong international treaties and strong international covenants that allow elected governments to modify and adapt these treaties or covenants in relation to changing circumstances.

I would agree that foreground concerns around multiethnicity, migration and the wealth divide are driving this socio-cultural divide but I'd also add increasing resource scarcity, human population growth and surplus energy economics are similarly important background concerns which contextualise the national and international concerns that are driving the divide.

At present, within the context of national/international realism, liberal reformists are trying to drive through laissez-faire socio-cultural, socio-economic and socio-ecological public policies which are being opposed by national populists, conservatives, conservationists and democrats which is leading towards an unproductive propaganda war.

What we need in particular is a corporate backed International Treaty on Sustainable Migration which recognises that migration must be contextualised within a global environment of increasing resource scarcity, increasing surplus energy costs, an increasing human population and most importantly an increasing amount of countries that are in ecological debt, the UK and the US being prime examples of where these foreground concerns and these background concerns defract.

Ideally, any International Treaty on Sustainable Migration will ensure that population distribution will be managed as an international effort with international finances. This points to the need for rich nations and rich corporations to commit financial and capital resources to build the necessary low carbon infrastructures needed to accommodate a growing population. But this needs to be done with a serious review of how we use resources globally. The priority should be to use resources to build the material infrastructures needed to satisfy the needs of a growing population with countries that are in ecological credit being the primary locations.

Alternatively, consortiums of countries could come together in order that as a group they are in ecological credit and then sign agreements to commit themselves to sharing the benefits of their respective green and grey infrastructures with one another with a view of sustainably accommodating migration.

In my opinion it would be foolish to encourage migration to countries that are already heavily in ecological debt like the UK and the US unless the UK or the US did form an international consortium with countries that are currently in ecological credit.

At the end of the day, we must think ecologically about these wide-ranging foreground and background issues, especially regarding decisions around migration. In other words, we do not want to cause unnecessary problems simply for the sake of political ideology.

It is comic to read regularly about how Brexit is "populist". We are reclaiming our rights, going back to the 15th century, that voters have the right to sanction their representatives in the legislature through the ballot box. Charles I was executed among other misdeeds for having created a Star Chamber, laws made by the executive. That is what the EU does.

Rodrik & Mukand's paper is a typical example of junk social science. Vide http://socioproctology.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/rodrik-mukand-theory-of-liberal.htmlWhat matters is that 'rights' are linked to 'remedies' through an incentive compatible vinculum juris. If Liberalism is interpreted to mean universal rights with the State having to provide the remedy regardless of the deadweight loss of the tax that would be involved, then 'Liberalism' is a threat.Electoral Democracy is never a threat provided Taxation mirrors Representation. Otherwise, it will become so no matter what the rule-set because the incentive will be lacking for that rule-sets implementation.Global financial markets can catalyze or motivate a transition to Liberal Democracy- South Africa is the classic example- however, unless the domestic financial market deepens in an endogenous manner, that transition will not be robust.

A second problem is that the rich (the top 20% in family income in the northern suburbs) have taken over the left-wing party. Bill said he was an Eisenhower Republican in economic views. Hillary retained her old Goldwater views both in economic and foreign policy. The extreme left in the party is Elizabeth Warren, who was a Nixon Republican in 1994. Trump is clearly to the left of both Clintons.

With no presidential candidate even as far left on the economic spectrum as Nixon, the campaigns must be based on social issues. Those whose wages are stagnant for decades must vote against the values of the top 20% who are interest only in the stock market (profits). Low-middle income minorities should vote the same way. That is why there is such manufactured hysteria about racism down to keep them from following economic interest and jointing whites of similar income.

So it was in the 1920s too. Then the social issue was prohibition. When FDR gave the votes economic issues, prohibition vanished today. So it will be with social issues today if a party gives them economic issues. The Democrats were on the right of the Republicans in the 1920s and FDR moved them to the east. Trump is trying to do that today. He may even succeed, It is a shame he is so old.

Jerry - As far as putting money into infrastructure goes, I hope it works, however average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 was higher than that in 1931 when the New Deal was put in place. The problem is industry which has collapsed or been offshored

Steve: the New deal did not begin until well into 1933, as the Inauguration date at that time was March 4th. The main pieces were not put into place until the following years. The "Roosevelt Recession" in 1938-39 was caused by fears of inflation imagine that) and the FED raised interest rates and the Fiscal stance shifted toward an austerity budget. Data should not be used without the historical context.

A valuable discussion. One part worry remembering in my opinion: Liberal Democracy is presented as a package deal - it bundles protections for socio-political rights of minorities, together with protections for property rights of the biggest businesses. Try to examine these features a-la-carte, and you will find yourself setting off alarms. It's an old trick to set up the "TINA" rhetoric.

If we have any interest in disarming this verbal sleight-of-hand, find a less ambiguous term than "Liberal".

The beloved leaders or parliamentarians of today are best described as Arhichion ( as Steve a fellow commentator herein once reminded us). These same leaders decided to abuse "Democracy" by constantly regulating, thinking that by doing so they could avoid judgement day and therefore control the masses, the Obama Administration excelled in this respect. Shultz of Germany's SPD thought he too could outsmart the system, we all know what he did today (the honourable thing). There is only one way out of the current political system (impasse) and that is devolution.

In a way, I wish the Obama Administration were to blame. But the truth is worse: the Republicans successfully blocked most of the Obama initiatives that were aimed to help largely white working people, and reaped their votes as a reward. The nuance, that it was the GOP that stopped the appropriate response, was lost on those attuned to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

Keith, Trump is not having it easy either. During his first year in office, there has been already two government shutdowns (a record), whilst during Obama's two terms in office there has been only one shut down, this should say it all. Incidentally, as you may have guess it by now, I am not a Trump supporter, did approve of B. Obama initially, but he deviated from his initial message and the electorate expressed their dissatisfaction at the ballot box during his second term in office. This is democracy.

I don't think the current issue is whether democracy is liberal or not. What we are experiencing throughout the Western world is a democratic temper tantrum, a populace asserting that if you in power don't pay attention to our concerns, we will tear your country down. The Trump, Brexit, and LePen voters knew perfectly well that they were supporting nasty, ignorant demagogues who would do great harm. Probably the supporters of fascistic governments in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary did as well. The angry voters don't have solutions, but don't care about them, democracy allows revenge. We are seeing a triumph of democracy, not a failure: the failure rests with leaders liberal (Clinton, Obama, Hollande) and illiberal (W. Bush, Cameron) who have too long let the concerns of ordinary people go unheard and unmet.

It is bizarre to suggest that 'the distinctive feature of liberal democracy is that it protects civil rights (equality before the law for minorities)'. The US was a liberal democracy when Jim Crow laws were at their height. A black man from the American South who relocated to the Principality of Monaco would have experienced less, not more discrimination.The British Empire was scarcely a 'liberal democracy'. However the rule of law, in many places, was better enforced and had featured less discrimination than obtained subsequently. Civil rights and law enforcement may be better under a despotism which hopes to draw a rent from providing a 'Tiebout model' having those features. The author believes that 'Democratic transitions are typically the product of a settlement between the elite (who care mostly about property rights) and the majority (who care mostly about political rights).'This is utter nonsense. Every democratic transition in history occurred either because of rivalry within elites or a popular revolution which tore up a lot of existing property rights. After the American Revolution, the property of the Loyalists was confiscated. After the French Revolution the Church and the Aristocracy lost a lot of their land. Democracies can completely change the Laws and the property regime.The author's paper is wholly worthless. The only reason a liberal Democracy will have 'due process' protection of property and civil rights is because this is a superior Tiebout model- the State will thrive. Of course, it a minority is violent or unproductive or a particular type of property or civil right has a negative externality that minority may be very badly treated and those rights will be abrogated or more honoured in the breach.The author believes that 'there is a difference between social mobilizations sparked by industrialization and decolonization. Since the latter revolve around identity cleavages rather than class cleavages, they are less conducive to liberal politics.' This is sheer nonsense. The Bolshevik revolution- which mobilised the industrial proletariat- completely expunged 'liberal politics'. By contrast, the Freedom struggle in India has a liberal democracy though it was produced by decolonisation. There is already a good Economic theory of Politics. The author is not drawing on it. The result is that his policy prescription is worthless. The problem is not with delegated legislation- elected politicians can easily change how they are applied. However, if those politicians are rubbish in the first place- then, sure, a problem does arise.

Mr. Iyer: Please study American history more carefully before you comment on it, especially when done so emphatically. As women were dined the right to vote until 1920, your claim that the US was a liberal democracy during the previous half century, on that count alone, is just wrong. In addition to denying the right to vote to one half the US adult population due to sex discrimination, the right to vote was denied Black Americans after the Reconstruction period was prematurely terminated after the 1876 election. Prior to that, Blacks were elected to major public offices including the US Senate. Gender-based and racial discrimination hardly fit with a reasonable concept of "liberalism" and the denial of voting rights is hardly the hallmark of "democracy."

Woodrow Wilson and Lloyd George were considered liberal democrats though they enforced racist policies. The Tzar, on the other hand, was considered an autocrat. Liberalism, it seems, is a movable feast. So, of course, is Democracy. It is all very well for Rodrik and Mukand to define Greece and India as illiberal because they lack civil rights, while the Czech Republic is arbitrarily affirmed as 'liberal'.

'Liberal Democracy' is a Kripkean rigid designator. Historically, America has been classed as one because it could have been one without much fundamental change. As a matter of fact, ending Jim Crow and extending the franchise could have occurred earlier.

See my comment at Paul Daley. To with I want to add that I consider the term "undemocratic liberalism" very inapt for several reasons: 1 all centrist parties in Europe tend to such policies the social democrats, the christen-democrats and the liberals (in the European sense!) alike. 2 The background of the tendency and its power comes from a technocracy and it "managerial class" that is no longer interested in the classical free markets and free competition. This class can live with both tendencies as described above. So the real question is why nobody still defends an open society with free competition. in the end I see the "analysis" by Dani Rodik as a desperate emptiness in between the 2 described "tendencies". Only is you are that desperate than you have to start to analyse the forces that drifted society away from an open and fair participation for the greatest number (to paraphrase the classical liberal ideal). Why is all labour (in private and public sectors) subjected to outrages top-down steering? Why have we become subjects (in the sense of subjected) in stead of participants in society?

'Why have we become subjects'... because you are bought and sold by the floating voter or key voting group which either suits or opposes your point of view. Political parties position themselves to attract votes accordingly. The most obvious recent case is Macron who used data collection to identify what the majority of voters wants and morphed his manifesto to suit that. Whether he can deliver those voter wants is a completely different question. There are advantages to not having historical baggage which as well as Macron also includes Trump.

Ferdinand, in that case my apologies. I see it as a binary condition where the less unattractive wins and the choice is personal and emotive rather than philosophic. Your 'desperate emptiness' reference however is apt

Macron today decided to attack the EU establishment, let us see whether these attacks shall remain words or be followed by some concrete action, especially in light of what is currently going on in Germany.

M M - A problem shared is a problem halved and good ol' Mac wants to share his problem. It remains diversionary tactics to claim to reform France via reforming Europe, it simply will not happen,you dont solve anything by making the problem bigger - but does give Mac somebody to blame - the girl next door who wouldn't go to the prom with him

Good article. It's good to emphasize that liberal democracy has always been a product of a competition between illiberal democracy and undemocratic liberalism. Liberals' fears and democrats' targets may change but so do the possibilities for compromise. Things go truly bad only a necessary dialogue between the two is undercut by one side or the other.

the "managerial class" of so-called "undemocratic Liberalism" are not Liberals, and the autocrats of "illiberal democracy" are not Democrats. More over the soial groups behind the two tendencies are mostly overlapping. The same people can support either way of dominance. So your interpretation of the division as 2 sides of a competition does not hold (and in fact that is an indication of an important flaw in the quasi-analysis presented above.

The US and the EU are not comparable and it is a dodgy starting point. The US as an entity was established in 1865 at the close of the civil war and was the result of outright domination of the North due to manufacturing and logistics advantage and thus predates the main stage of industrialisation in its varying forms in the 20th century which granted overall benefit to (predominately white) Americans and a cohesive identity. The outcome was indicated by the steadily increasing cost of fundraising via Southern bonds throughout the conflict. It is arguable the EU is still trying to form itself and is more akin to a club and hence its problems, there is no central command entitlement and trying to impose it is fueling resistance movements. There is some logic in developing a common federal state in Europe to economically take on the US and the East but they have made an almighty mess of the endeavour through misrepresenting what they are doing and the consequences which is still going on eg a common currency without transfers cannot exist. The issue with democracy is the capture of outcomes by propaganda to floating voters who rapidly show buyers regret. Its arguable this is on display with both Brexit and Trump outcomes and you end up with polarised voters nearly numerically balanced and fighting in the media which is socially divisive. It is destabilizing because those that win such as Trump or the Brexiteers feel they will be overturned at the first opportunity and those who lost feel they have been cheated. I haven't read Mounk's book but the roots of his argument seem at first glance to have some similarity to Chomsky's argument that Capitalism and Democracy are uncomfortable bedmates. The big problem remains that politicians do not want to face facts and implement policies that damage their voter base and bow to small but influential floating voter blocs. In this sense minorities capture elections. In Europe France is the country to watch as a major democratic country as it struggles politically and economically with reform issues against the backdrop of a history of popular and sometime violent action by relatively small groups some of whom are favoured by the current taxation burden. It will be indicative of democratic resolutions or otherwise, but a current deindustrialisation rate of 1% per annum will pressure. In the American civil war the South fought because abolition would effectively destroy the Southern economy indicating just how far interested parties are prepared to go to defend a beneficial position even if it involves the slaughter of brothers in arms. Just an a opinion

Surely not all is good in the EU and one can critizse many policy decisions taken on the European level. But calling it an apogee of the tendency towards undemocratic liberalism appears ignoring very important facts. The EU's law making is after all undertaken in a bicameral structure requiring majorities both in a directly elected parliament and by the governments of the Member States. The fact that the EU has a Court of Justice is not an instance of technocracy but a sign of a system with control and accountability mechanisms reviewing the exercise of executive and legislative powers against a constitutional set of rules and values. Also the European Central Bank is hardly the only independent central bank in the western world, but it should be noted, that it has fewer powers than many of its peers. Most importantly, the EU is also a system which guarantees individuals rights against majoritarian decision making in states - that is the reason many in the EU are agahast at the driving force of Brexit, which appeared strongly driven by the whish to deny other Europeans the rights they enjoy as EU citizens.Herwig Hofmann

The members of the European Parliament are elected by popular vote. However the Parliament is not permitted to introduce legislation. Power resides with the Commission and the member states. Especially the biggest ones.

I am always reading that France and Germany are going to do this or that - the rest of the EU is then presumed to follow. Really the EU is like the imperialism of 1850-1950: the colonies had all sorts of representative bodies but these had no power.

Herwig, the problem with the EU is that de facto veto is available to member states as agreement of all members is required on major issues. This diminishes the key attribute of democracy which is the ability to evolve policy. You now have lobby groups whose entire mission is to block reform in the EU. BTW Assuming Brexit moves ahead why should residual resident europeans have more rights than native British, it is nuts as a proposition